Consumer Rights Daily: FCA Questions APRs, Car Makers Push Back on Motor Finance Redress, SIM-Swap Fraud in the Spotlight

30th April 2026 | Industry Watch

Is the APR on Your Credit Card Or Loan Actually Telling You the Truth?

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) lobbed a quiet but consequential question into the regulatory pond yesterday: is the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) actually helping you compare credit products, or is it misleading you?

Their new Discussion Paper, published 29th April 2026, leans on PwC research the FCA commissioned. The standout finding: when a lower APR did not reflect cheaper overall borrowing, typically because of fees or longer repayment terms, fewer than 1 in 5 consumers correctly identified the cheapest loan. Most people picked the loan with the lowest headline APR, even when it would actually cost them more.

This sits alongside a companion Consultation Paper (CP25/27) on simplifying financial promotion rules under the Consumer Duty. Both close to feedback on 17th June 2026.

Two things matter here:

1. The FCA has not said APR is being scrapped. It's asking whether more useful disclosures (like total repayment figures) should sit alongside or replace the APR-only headline.
2. If the FCA concludes APRs misled you on a specific product, that becomes powerful evidence in a Consumer Duty complaint. If your credit-card or personal-loan provider made the cheapest-looking product the most expensive in practice, the Consumer Duty already requires them to support your understanding of true cost. This Discussion Paper is the FCA effectively saying: "We're not sure you're doing it well enough."

What you can do now:

• If you've taken on a credit-card or personal-loan product in the last few years and the actual cost surprised you, request a total-cost-of-credit breakdown from your provider in writing. Cite the Consumer Duty.
• Save any advertising or comparison-site screenshots that highlighted only the APR. They're potential evidence if you later complain.
• If the response is poor, escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service after 8 weeks, the FOS already considers Consumer Duty obligations in its decisions.

Mercedes and VW Take the Motor Finance Redress Scheme to Court (Sort Of)

Yesterday morning's headlines were full of legal challenges to the FCA's £9.1bn motor finance redress scheme, and the noise is finally getting interesting.

We already knew Consumer Voice was challenging the scheme at the Upper Tribunal because (in their view) it under-compensates consumers. Now we know that Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen Financial Services UK have lodged formal challenges from the opposite direction, and BMW has expressed disagreement (without yet a formal challenge).

VW's stated position: it supports redress for "genuinely disadvantaged" customers but wants the scheme to be "lawful, fair and properly targeted." Read that as: please make the scheme narrower or smaller. Santander UK has set aside €207m in provisions to handle whatever comes out the other side.

Initial hope was for first payouts in 2026. The new legal challenges almost certainly delay that.

The headline date for you, the consumer, hasn't moved: lenders are still required to start contacting affected customers from 30th June 2026, and the final complaint deadline is 31st August 2027. Martin Lewis was on this in MSE earlier this week with the same advice we'd give:

[Editor's note, 15th May 2026]: The FCA confirmed on 8th May 2026 that the scheme start has been delayed to approximately November 2026 due to four legal challenges at the Upper Tribunal. The 30th June 2026 implementation period end date is a lender operational deadline, not a consumer payout date. Consumers should still complain now to be in the faster queue. See our 12 May roundup for details.

Get your complaint in now. A pending tribunal challenge does not pause your individual rights, and any improvement to the redress framework will apply to the cases already in the queue.

If you bought a car on PCP, HP or conditional sale at any point between 2007 and 2024 and the dealer didn't make the commission they earned crystal clear, you almost certainly have a claim. Don't wait for the tribunals to play out, they could delay payouts by 12-24 months.

SIM-Swap Fraud, Mobile Networks Aren't Doing Enough, Says Which?

A short but pointed piece from Which? today (30th April): mobile networks need to do more to prevent SIM-swap fraud. SIM-swap fraud is when a fraudster persuades your mobile network to port your phone number onto their SIM, then uses that to bypass two-factor authentication on your bank, email and crypto accounts. Losses can run into tens of thousands.

Three things worth saying that Which? didn't focus on, but EvenStance users should know:

1. The mobile network is potentially liable for negligent SIM ports. If you can show they didn't check ID properly, or ignored multiple red flags, that's a complaint to the network, then to Ofcom.
2. The bank is potentially liable separately for losses you suffered after the SIM swap, especially if the bank's authentication relied solely on SMS one-time codes. That's a complaint to the bank, then to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
3. Section 75 and chargeback kick in for any card transactions during the takeover window, separate route again, via the card issuer.

This is one of the rare consumer-rights situations where you may want to pursue three parallel complaints, telecoms, banking and chargeback, because each addresses a different loss and a different liability.

If a SIM swap has hit you, document the timeline carefully (when the network ported your number, when you noticed, when you reported), keep every text, and report it to Action Fraud.

Three FCA Warnings to Add to the Blocklist

Quick scam-watch update for the end of the month. The FCA issued unauthorised-firm warnings yesterday for:

1. Capital Traders Hub, claims to operate from 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf (almost certainly a serviced-office or made-up address). Phone: 7027064466. Avoid.
2. Novariontrade, no FCA authorisation. Avoid.
3. Nexalara Investment, no FCA authorisation. Avoid.

If you've sent money to any of these, you have no access to the FOS or the FSCS, the standard consumer protections only apply to authorised firms. Report it to Action Fraud straight away, ask your bank or card provider for a chargeback, and document everything.

This roundup is informational and not legal or financial advice. EvenStance helps you navigate consumer disputes, sign up for free at evenstance.com.